Comparing Immigration Perspectives
The newest quagmire of politics, national security and economics involves the question of immigration. Our political system calls for an adversarial process where two or more perspectives are considered in the process of making policy, regulation and law.
There are four basic sets of opposing perspectives to consider. Certainly these issues are more complex than will be presented here, but what will be offered in this post is a basic contrast and comparison of these ethical, legal and economic issues. These four basic opposing perspectives include the following:
There is a claim that principles of basic human rights of mobility, economic freedom, political freedom and the "pursuit of happiness" are inherent and are derived from a set of universal and natural laws. Additionally, there are established principles of Americanism that are established in the Declaration of Independence and our national culture which support as fair-minded and open immigration policy as possible and allowable under law:
In contrast to these inherent rights and principles is the right for sovereign integrity, international legal standards for immigration and travel, and established procedures for immigrating, seeking asylum and crossing international borders. A nation--any nation--has an inherent right to determine who can and cannot enter its borders. While the United States is by principle required to adopt immigration standards that fulfill the inherent rights declared by historical precedent, we also have a right to limit immigration to a level that does not overtax or burden our resources.
Balancing these issues is a tenuous effort because we claim a position of advocating for human rights as a matter of freedom, democracy and, in the case of many people, as a matter of religious doctrine. While many will argue the issue of separation of Church and State, there is an underlying Judeo-Christian-Muslim principle of providing for those that are disadvantaged by economic, political, military, religious or ideological oppression. These principles were incorporated into the American value system by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution not as a matter of religious doctrine, but as a matter of universal principle (aka "natural law").
Recent proposals in congress have called those principles--and our heritage as a nation of decency and law--into question because there are specific restrictions on providing even basic aid to those who would cross our borders in an illegal manner. Those people or groups acting on the moral principle that no one should go hungry, thirsty or be exposed to the elements, would be cast as criminals for providing water, foos or shelter to those that enter this country via crossing harsh terrain, arid desert, or face inclement weather conditions. In my view, these proposals fall into the category of cruelty and unjust law... and I characterize those proposing such law and restrictions as being persons who "wouldn't give a drowning man a glass of water." Regardless of the perspective on the illegal immigration problem, making the criminalizing of giving a human soul food, water, shelter and/or a place to rest a short while is an atrocity, a crime against humanity and against the very principles of justice.
That does not mean that we have to throw open our borders and invite all that desire change in their lives. It does mean that we have to apply basic principles of justice, human dignity and human rights. We have to be consistent in our approach as well. We prosecute those that illegally import persons over the border and cause injury, harm of death to those people because they do not provide water, food or basic needs. We charge them with manslaughter, negligent homicide or homicide when people die in overheated trucks or other "vehicles" of transport and smuggling. We cannot hold that denying basic human needs is a crime on one hand and then claim that providing for basic needs is a crime on the other hand. It's a dissonant form of legal schizophrenia... psychotic and out of touch with reality.
There is an argument that certain immigrant groups have a historical claim to cross borders into the United States. Those having Spanish and/or Native American heritage from the original lands once known as Mexico may have a natural geographic claim to cross the US-Mexican border. While the argument is often dismissed, especially by those most vehemently opposed to immigration from Mexico, the argument is one supported by US foreign policy. The precedent comes from US support for the State of Israel. The claim for establishing Israel as a sovereign nation--stemming from official recognition in 1948 and US support for Israel within the United Nations and through international law--is based on a historical claim to the region, even though many of those laying claim to Israel were not native to the area once known as Palestine. Indeed, a great majority of those laying claim to Israel and Israeli citizenship are from Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.
Once again, we are faced with an issue of cognitive dissonance. If we support such claims to lands and immigration on one hand, how can we deny those claims on the other hand? The history of Spanish exploration, conquest and claim to the regions that we now call Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California is well-established. While other historical events (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Texas Independence, California Independence, etc.) certainly modify the governmental claims to these regions, the basic claim to open mobility and immigration may warrant some attention.
Certainly the claim to open border crossing by those having Native American heritage--especially those claiming Apache, Commanche, Hopi, Yuni, Navajo, Yaqui and other regional tribal cultures--bears some consideration. They have a historical claim to regional resources that, while often dismissed by the US government, has some fundamental merit. Again, considering our support of similar claims in Israel and elsewhere, we have to allow the argument to be heard.
But then, too, we have an inherent right to establish procedures and laws governing immigration, protection of our own established citizenry, and the integrity of our own society. These rights are also inherent and stem from natural law, historical precedent and international standards of sovereignty.
It is under the umbrella of these competing issues that we see conflict over amnesty for existing illegal immigrants, a guest worker program, and a hard line against anyone that crossed our borders without undergoing a legitimate process.
The United States has a history of unfair immigration policies and laws. We have institutionalized prejudices against Latinos, Asians, Jews, and other identifiable immigration waves along our path to where we are today. We allowed Chinese immigration to serve the purposes of building railroads and other infrastructure, but then placed severe limits on Chinese and other Asian immigration. During World War II we took the extreme measure of placing Japanese-Americans--many of whom were born citizens of the United States--into internment camps, all the while ignoring the Italian-American and German-American ethnic groups that could have posed the same claim of threat to national security. The gateways to the US were sometimes open and sometimes closed to Irish, Central Eastern Europeans, Russians and Poles, and Middle Eastern ethnicities. We have been quite inconsistent and quite unfair in our immigration policies and practices... sometimes even to the point of being inhumane.
But we need to control our borders. Our national security and protection against invasion or foreign terrorism is dependent upon our gaining full control over our borders. The failure to do so is inherently dangerous to our sovereignty and safety. Give the events of 9-11, the issues of border control, immigration and screening who comes into our country is absolutely necessary.
These issues are difficult to balance without relying upon fundamental first principles. It is my fear and concern that the issue is already too much of a political football for anything of a reasonable policy to be produced.
The arguments in favor of a guest worker program or amnesty for existing illegal immigrants are that these folks supplement our existing workforce, take jobs that "Americans do not want" and contribute to the economy by keeping costs down for produce, construction, house cleaning and low-skill manufacturing.
These arguments are actually hollow and false. According to my understanding of things, we have undergone welfare reform as of the mid-1990s. All welfare recipients are now required to perform some manner of work in order to receive welfare benefits. My own investigation of these so-called "workfare programs" reveals that there are not enough jobs that would allow many welfare recipients to meet these requirements in many states. So the argument that there are jobs that Americans do not want is somewhat of a false pretense. Certainly not many Americans would care to work in the fields of a commercial farm. Most Americans do not want to work on assembly lines in a manufacturing plant. But there are tons of folks that would want a fairly well-paid construction job.
However, the real reason people are advocating for illegal immigrants in the workforce is that they are extremely vulnerable and exploitable by these industries. Because most illegal immigrants cannot find work without falsifying the required documentation, or finding an employer that doesn't seem to mind breaking the law regarding undocumented workers, they often take jobs where the employer can take advantage of these issues and facts.
Most illegal immigrant and legal migrant farm workers are paid an underwage. If there is any effort to provide housing, it is often temporary and substandard in nature. Migrant worker families often do not fully enroll their children in schools while working due to 1) lack of legal status, 2) rapidly changing work locations or 3) lack of a permanent residence with a reliable address. The governmental, independent news and/or social research reports on the poor conditions for these migratory workers and families. There have also been numerous issues of abuse and unfair labor practices in this industry, which is why we have such heroic figures as Cesar Chavez in the annals of our history.
Most illegal immigrants working in manufacturing are low-skilled workers that often get the jobs through day-laborer agencies. They sign up and wait around until a bus or van comes by to drive them to a plant and they are given a minimum of training on a machine or a line task and they are worked to the bone. If they make minimum wage or higher, they are among the lucky. Even in more skilled production areas, like that in the garment industry, take advantage of illegal workers.
A contact I made some time ago runs several garment sewing sub-contractor sweat shops. He is an immigrant from the Domincan Republic. He sets up a sewing production center in a small low-rent area, hires exclusively illegal immigrant workers, and pays them a pittance on a piece meal basis. Last time we spoke he had two of these shops in New Jersey, four in New York City, two in suburbs of New York and two in Chelsea, Massachusetts. He does not pay them by check. He almost always claims a certain percentage of the work are "seconds" and pays less for that work, and none of the wages are taxed in any manner. He has been caught doing this type of thing at least five times. All five times he has escaped prosecution and just sets up shop somewhere else. Even when his sewing machines and equipment have been confiscated, he merely buys more and moves on.
He told me that he mostly uses Hispanic/Latino immigrants that do not have other resources. He spoke to me of their fear of causing a problem with the employer for fear of losing the job, being turned into immigration, or having the police called for trespassing, which could cause them to be asked about their identification. Since most of these folks speak Spanish and very little English, and they do not have any real knowledge of labor laws, and they are essentially disenfranchised from the system, they are easy prey. He did indicate that in New York City he hires a lot of Asians, especially Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians... all illegally in this country.
The construction industry uses illegal workers as laborers, flaggers for directing traffic, demolition and site clean up. Most illegal workers in this industry are day laborers because regularly hired workers show up on union, municipal and state rules enforcement radar. Most are hired by non-union construction businesses, many paying under-the-table wages.
Of course, the number of illegal immigrants working in the arena of house cleaning (domestic workers) has received a lot of attention since the Reagan administration when several nominees for political or judicial office were found to be employers of illegal immigrants. Even though there was a lot of flack flying about, there has been at least one or two such disclosures during almost every administration since then.
Then there is the other shoe of hiring illegal workers: no health care or insurance costs. These folks do not pay unemployment insurance. They do not pay liability insurance for their operations or facilities. They do not pay for health care insurance coverage.
Most of these workers use our emergency rooms for pressing health care issues. Many find ways to "share" insurance cards with those family members and friends lucky enough to have health care coverage, attempt to qualify for free care, or just skip out on the bill altogether. In some places, especially in parts of California, there are free clinics that serve pocket communities, but even these places use funds from the public tax coffers.
Of course, most of these workers do not pay income tax on wages earned. They cannot report wages without disclosing their illegal status. If they do that, they will be swooped up by INS--at least in theory--and deported. Many manage to maintain status as an illegal immigrant and illegal worker for years. Those that manage to do so stay off the radar of law enforcement, thus establishing themselves at least as good neighbors.
This is where there is no fairness in the immigration policy. If an illegal immigrant manages to maintain themselves as a good neighbor for many years, it doesn't help their case if they are discovered by INS. It often doesn't matter if they have started a family and have several children that are US citizens because they were born here. That is why there is a cry for amnesty of some sort.
There are no easy answers for this problem. What is needed is a brilliant piece of compromise legislation that mediates between the extreme sides of the story. Even that won't be perfect, but at least it has the possibility of being based on principles of human decency, human rights, fairness, justice and restoring order.
But let us be clear about something: The immigration issues are not only a national security issue. These issues are also about our reputation of being a principled leader in the international community.
There are four basic sets of opposing perspectives to consider. Certainly these issues are more complex than will be presented here, but what will be offered in this post is a basic contrast and comparison of these ethical, legal and economic issues. These four basic opposing perspectives include the following:
BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS & NATURAL LAW v. SOVEREIGN RIGHTS & INTERNATIONAL LAW
There is a claim that principles of basic human rights of mobility, economic freedom, political freedom and the "pursuit of happiness" are inherent and are derived from a set of universal and natural laws. Additionally, there are established principles of Americanism that are established in the Declaration of Independence and our national culture which support as fair-minded and open immigration policy as possible and allowable under law:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” The New Colossus - Emma Lazarus
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... Declaration of Independence
In contrast to these inherent rights and principles is the right for sovereign integrity, international legal standards for immigration and travel, and established procedures for immigrating, seeking asylum and crossing international borders. A nation--any nation--has an inherent right to determine who can and cannot enter its borders. While the United States is by principle required to adopt immigration standards that fulfill the inherent rights declared by historical precedent, we also have a right to limit immigration to a level that does not overtax or burden our resources.
Balancing these issues is a tenuous effort because we claim a position of advocating for human rights as a matter of freedom, democracy and, in the case of many people, as a matter of religious doctrine. While many will argue the issue of separation of Church and State, there is an underlying Judeo-Christian-Muslim principle of providing for those that are disadvantaged by economic, political, military, religious or ideological oppression. These principles were incorporated into the American value system by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution not as a matter of religious doctrine, but as a matter of universal principle (aka "natural law").
Recent proposals in congress have called those principles--and our heritage as a nation of decency and law--into question because there are specific restrictions on providing even basic aid to those who would cross our borders in an illegal manner. Those people or groups acting on the moral principle that no one should go hungry, thirsty or be exposed to the elements, would be cast as criminals for providing water, foos or shelter to those that enter this country via crossing harsh terrain, arid desert, or face inclement weather conditions. In my view, these proposals fall into the category of cruelty and unjust law... and I characterize those proposing such law and restrictions as being persons who "wouldn't give a drowning man a glass of water." Regardless of the perspective on the illegal immigration problem, making the criminalizing of giving a human soul food, water, shelter and/or a place to rest a short while is an atrocity, a crime against humanity and against the very principles of justice.
That does not mean that we have to throw open our borders and invite all that desire change in their lives. It does mean that we have to apply basic principles of justice, human dignity and human rights. We have to be consistent in our approach as well. We prosecute those that illegally import persons over the border and cause injury, harm of death to those people because they do not provide water, food or basic needs. We charge them with manslaughter, negligent homicide or homicide when people die in overheated trucks or other "vehicles" of transport and smuggling. We cannot hold that denying basic human needs is a crime on one hand and then claim that providing for basic needs is a crime on the other hand. It's a dissonant form of legal schizophrenia... psychotic and out of touch with reality.
ORIGINAL IMMIGRATION STATUS & NATIVE ORIGIN v. LEGAL IMMIGRATION STATUS & NATIVE ORIGIN
There is an argument that certain immigrant groups have a historical claim to cross borders into the United States. Those having Spanish and/or Native American heritage from the original lands once known as Mexico may have a natural geographic claim to cross the US-Mexican border. While the argument is often dismissed, especially by those most vehemently opposed to immigration from Mexico, the argument is one supported by US foreign policy. The precedent comes from US support for the State of Israel. The claim for establishing Israel as a sovereign nation--stemming from official recognition in 1948 and US support for Israel within the United Nations and through international law--is based on a historical claim to the region, even though many of those laying claim to Israel were not native to the area once known as Palestine. Indeed, a great majority of those laying claim to Israel and Israeli citizenship are from Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.
Once again, we are faced with an issue of cognitive dissonance. If we support such claims to lands and immigration on one hand, how can we deny those claims on the other hand? The history of Spanish exploration, conquest and claim to the regions that we now call Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California is well-established. While other historical events (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Texas Independence, California Independence, etc.) certainly modify the governmental claims to these regions, the basic claim to open mobility and immigration may warrant some attention.
Certainly the claim to open border crossing by those having Native American heritage--especially those claiming Apache, Commanche, Hopi, Yuni, Navajo, Yaqui and other regional tribal cultures--bears some consideration. They have a historical claim to regional resources that, while often dismissed by the US government, has some fundamental merit. Again, considering our support of similar claims in Israel and elsewhere, we have to allow the argument to be heard.
But then, too, we have an inherent right to establish procedures and laws governing immigration, protection of our own established citizenry, and the integrity of our own society. These rights are also inherent and stem from natural law, historical precedent and international standards of sovereignty.
It is under the umbrella of these competing issues that we see conflict over amnesty for existing illegal immigrants, a guest worker program, and a hard line against anyone that crossed our borders without undergoing a legitimate process.
HISTORICALLY UNFAIR IMMIGRATION POLICIES & LAW v. BORDER CONTROL & NATIONAL SECURITY
The United States has a history of unfair immigration policies and laws. We have institutionalized prejudices against Latinos, Asians, Jews, and other identifiable immigration waves along our path to where we are today. We allowed Chinese immigration to serve the purposes of building railroads and other infrastructure, but then placed severe limits on Chinese and other Asian immigration. During World War II we took the extreme measure of placing Japanese-Americans--many of whom were born citizens of the United States--into internment camps, all the while ignoring the Italian-American and German-American ethnic groups that could have posed the same claim of threat to national security. The gateways to the US were sometimes open and sometimes closed to Irish, Central Eastern Europeans, Russians and Poles, and Middle Eastern ethnicities. We have been quite inconsistent and quite unfair in our immigration policies and practices... sometimes even to the point of being inhumane.
But we need to control our borders. Our national security and protection against invasion or foreign terrorism is dependent upon our gaining full control over our borders. The failure to do so is inherently dangerous to our sovereignty and safety. Give the events of 9-11, the issues of border control, immigration and screening who comes into our country is absolutely necessary.
These issues are difficult to balance without relying upon fundamental first principles. It is my fear and concern that the issue is already too much of a political football for anything of a reasonable policy to be produced.
WORKFORCE SUPPLEMENTATION & ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS v. WORKER EXPLOITATION & ECONOMIC DETRIMENTS
The arguments in favor of a guest worker program or amnesty for existing illegal immigrants are that these folks supplement our existing workforce, take jobs that "Americans do not want" and contribute to the economy by keeping costs down for produce, construction, house cleaning and low-skill manufacturing.
These arguments are actually hollow and false. According to my understanding of things, we have undergone welfare reform as of the mid-1990s. All welfare recipients are now required to perform some manner of work in order to receive welfare benefits. My own investigation of these so-called "workfare programs" reveals that there are not enough jobs that would allow many welfare recipients to meet these requirements in many states. So the argument that there are jobs that Americans do not want is somewhat of a false pretense. Certainly not many Americans would care to work in the fields of a commercial farm. Most Americans do not want to work on assembly lines in a manufacturing plant. But there are tons of folks that would want a fairly well-paid construction job.
However, the real reason people are advocating for illegal immigrants in the workforce is that they are extremely vulnerable and exploitable by these industries. Because most illegal immigrants cannot find work without falsifying the required documentation, or finding an employer that doesn't seem to mind breaking the law regarding undocumented workers, they often take jobs where the employer can take advantage of these issues and facts.
Most illegal immigrant and legal migrant farm workers are paid an underwage. If there is any effort to provide housing, it is often temporary and substandard in nature. Migrant worker families often do not fully enroll their children in schools while working due to 1) lack of legal status, 2) rapidly changing work locations or 3) lack of a permanent residence with a reliable address. The governmental, independent news and/or social research reports on the poor conditions for these migratory workers and families. There have also been numerous issues of abuse and unfair labor practices in this industry, which is why we have such heroic figures as Cesar Chavez in the annals of our history.
Most illegal immigrants working in manufacturing are low-skilled workers that often get the jobs through day-laborer agencies. They sign up and wait around until a bus or van comes by to drive them to a plant and they are given a minimum of training on a machine or a line task and they are worked to the bone. If they make minimum wage or higher, they are among the lucky. Even in more skilled production areas, like that in the garment industry, take advantage of illegal workers.
A contact I made some time ago runs several garment sewing sub-contractor sweat shops. He is an immigrant from the Domincan Republic. He sets up a sewing production center in a small low-rent area, hires exclusively illegal immigrant workers, and pays them a pittance on a piece meal basis. Last time we spoke he had two of these shops in New Jersey, four in New York City, two in suburbs of New York and two in Chelsea, Massachusetts. He does not pay them by check. He almost always claims a certain percentage of the work are "seconds" and pays less for that work, and none of the wages are taxed in any manner. He has been caught doing this type of thing at least five times. All five times he has escaped prosecution and just sets up shop somewhere else. Even when his sewing machines and equipment have been confiscated, he merely buys more and moves on.
He told me that he mostly uses Hispanic/Latino immigrants that do not have other resources. He spoke to me of their fear of causing a problem with the employer for fear of losing the job, being turned into immigration, or having the police called for trespassing, which could cause them to be asked about their identification. Since most of these folks speak Spanish and very little English, and they do not have any real knowledge of labor laws, and they are essentially disenfranchised from the system, they are easy prey. He did indicate that in New York City he hires a lot of Asians, especially Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians... all illegally in this country.
The construction industry uses illegal workers as laborers, flaggers for directing traffic, demolition and site clean up. Most illegal workers in this industry are day laborers because regularly hired workers show up on union, municipal and state rules enforcement radar. Most are hired by non-union construction businesses, many paying under-the-table wages.
Of course, the number of illegal immigrants working in the arena of house cleaning (domestic workers) has received a lot of attention since the Reagan administration when several nominees for political or judicial office were found to be employers of illegal immigrants. Even though there was a lot of flack flying about, there has been at least one or two such disclosures during almost every administration since then.
Then there is the other shoe of hiring illegal workers: no health care or insurance costs. These folks do not pay unemployment insurance. They do not pay liability insurance for their operations or facilities. They do not pay for health care insurance coverage.
Most of these workers use our emergency rooms for pressing health care issues. Many find ways to "share" insurance cards with those family members and friends lucky enough to have health care coverage, attempt to qualify for free care, or just skip out on the bill altogether. In some places, especially in parts of California, there are free clinics that serve pocket communities, but even these places use funds from the public tax coffers.
Of course, most of these workers do not pay income tax on wages earned. They cannot report wages without disclosing their illegal status. If they do that, they will be swooped up by INS--at least in theory--and deported. Many manage to maintain status as an illegal immigrant and illegal worker for years. Those that manage to do so stay off the radar of law enforcement, thus establishing themselves at least as good neighbors.
This is where there is no fairness in the immigration policy. If an illegal immigrant manages to maintain themselves as a good neighbor for many years, it doesn't help their case if they are discovered by INS. It often doesn't matter if they have started a family and have several children that are US citizens because they were born here. That is why there is a cry for amnesty of some sort.
There are no easy answers for this problem. What is needed is a brilliant piece of compromise legislation that mediates between the extreme sides of the story. Even that won't be perfect, but at least it has the possibility of being based on principles of human decency, human rights, fairness, justice and restoring order.
But let us be clear about something: The immigration issues are not only a national security issue. These issues are also about our reputation of being a principled leader in the international community.
posted by Jim Downey at 1:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home